That is partly correct. Wayland is not based on X.org. There is nothing rewritten, removed or simplified. It’s an entirely new design, new code with a different license. And X11 isn’t written by a single developer. XFree86 was started by 3 people, got maintained by an incorporated and then became X.org and sponsored by an industry consortium (the X.Org Foundation). Many many people and companies contributed. The rest is correct. It grew too complex and maintenance is a hassle. Wayland simplifies things and is a state of the art approach. Nobody removed features but they started from zero so it took a while to implement all important features. As of today we’re almost there and Wayland is close to replacing X11.
And it will become more as development focuses on Wayland. If you look at X11’s release history, there is (and has been for quite some time) only the most important things going on. That doesn’t necessarily mean things are impossible to do with X11. But it’s just the way things are once something slowly gets replaced by something else.
Hmmh, to me rewriting something means something like writing it again, or revising it.
But it’s entirely new, not based on the predecessor, they didn’t have the old code or architecture in mind and it ended up in a different place with different features. So I don’t see a “re-”, just a “write”. I’d say it’s the same category of software (display servers / -protocols) but entirely different and independent from each other. I’d use the word ‘rewrite’ if they were dependent on each other in some form or if one was meant to replicate the other one.
I think that’s generally the point of a rewrite. To start from scratch with a better architecture. If you weren’t changing the architecture then you can probably just keep incrementally improving it.
Yes, but the word rewrite implies that it would serve the same function and retain compatibility.
If someone wrote a new implementation of the x protocol, as a drop in replacement for the existing x.org server, you might call that a rewrite.
Wayland is an entirely different solution to the same problem. It doesn’t follow the x protocol, and doesn’t maintain compatibility with the x.org server.
I think @[email protected] did a better job explaining it… It’s a rewrite if you’re trying to create the same product as before. And that’s not what Wayland is trying to do.
I mean we also don’t say a car is a rewrite of a train (or vice versa) but they share some of the same components (wheels, seats, a driver…) And libinput, drm, mesa aren’t copied to the source code. They’re seperate projects and components/libraries that are used via an interface that makes them reusable. Lots of other projects also use the same set of libraries. For example networking. Or games that are built with the same game engine.
That is partly correct. Wayland is not based on X.org. There is nothing rewritten, removed or simplified. It’s an entirely new design, new code with a different license. And X11 isn’t written by a single developer. XFree86 was started by 3 people, got maintained by an incorporated and then became X.org and sponsored by an industry consortium (the X.Org Foundation). Many many people and companies contributed. The rest is correct. It grew too complex and maintenance is a hassle. Wayland simplifies things and is a state of the art approach. Nobody removed features but they started from zero so it took a while to implement all important features. As of today we’re almost there and Wayland is close to replacing X11.
Also, doesn’t Wayland do things x11 can’t, or did badly, like Variable refresh rate ?
Fractional scaling (per-display), input isolation…
And it will become more as development focuses on Wayland. If you look at X11’s release history, there is (and has been for quite some time) only the most important things going on. That doesn’t necessarily mean things are impossible to do with X11. But it’s just the way things are once something slowly gets replaced by something else.
That is the definition of a rewrite, no? They started from scratch. Otherwise it would be a refactor, cleanup or overhaul.
And yes, it was more than one developer but Wayland was largely started by at-the-time X maintainers.
Hmmh, to me rewriting something means something like writing it again, or revising it. But it’s entirely new, not based on the predecessor, they didn’t have the old code or architecture in mind and it ended up in a different place with different features. So I don’t see a “re-”, just a “write”. I’d say it’s the same category of software (display servers / -protocols) but entirely different and independent from each other. I’d use the word ‘rewrite’ if they were dependent on each other in some form or if one was meant to replicate the other one.
I think that’s generally the point of a rewrite. To start from scratch with a better architecture. If you weren’t changing the architecture then you can probably just keep incrementally improving it.
When you do a rewrite you want to create the same product as before just with better code / architecture. That’s not what Wayland tries to do.
Yes, but the word rewrite implies that it would serve the same function and retain compatibility.
If someone wrote a new implementation of the x protocol, as a drop in replacement for the existing x.org server, you might call that a rewrite.
Wayland is an entirely different solution to the same problem. It doesn’t follow the x protocol, and doesn’t maintain compatibility with the x.org server.
I don’t know that I would say that Wayland is not based on X11. It is a rewrite, not a fork but it is the next chapter of a common history.
Wayland and Xorg do share a lot of code in a way. Libraries like libinput, libdrm, KMS, and Mesa are used by both.
I think @[email protected] did a better job explaining it… It’s a rewrite if you’re trying to create the same product as before. And that’s not what Wayland is trying to do.
I mean we also don’t say a car is a rewrite of a train (or vice versa) but they share some of the same components (wheels, seats, a driver…) And libinput, drm, mesa aren’t copied to the source code. They’re seperate projects and components/libraries that are used via an interface that makes them reusable. Lots of other projects also use the same set of libraries. For example networking. Or games that are built with the same game engine.